Why I Migrated to Static Site Generation
Overview
I have used a number of systems to run and host my website over the years. The latest was WordPress—a powerful, flexible content management system that has powered millions of websites. WordPress is incredibly popular because it's easy to set up, allows rapid content creation, and provides endless customisation through plugins and themes.
But popularity comes with a cost. Every day, my website was under attack. Failed login attempts, plugin exploits, database vulnerabilities—the constant stream of security alerts made it clear: WordPress is a target.
After 35+ years in IT, I understand security architecture. And the moment I stepped back and looked at what my website actually was—primarily static content, a blog, a portfolio—I realised I was using a cannon to shoot sparrows. I decided to migrate to static site generation. It's been one of the best decisions I've made for my site.
The Problem with Dynamic CMS Systems
WordPress and similar CMS platforms are powerful, but they're also complex:
The attack surface: WordPress exposes a login page, user management, databases, and countless plugins. Each adds potential vulnerabilities. Hackers know WordPress, they know common exploits, and they attack indiscriminately.
The maintenance burden: Every day brings security updates. WordPress core updates, plugin updates, theme updates. You must stay on top of them or risk compromise. I was spending more time maintaining the system than writing content.
The performance cost: Generating pages dynamically on every request means database queries, PHP execution, and potential bottlenecks. This slows down load times and increases hosting costs.
The hosting complexity: WordPress needs a server (or server space), a database, regular backups, monitoring. It requires technical setup or paid hosting services. More moving parts equals more potential failure points.
The lock-in: Your content is buried in a database, in WordPress-specific formats. Exporting and migrating is painful. Switching to another system takes months of work.
When I looked at my actual needs—posting articles, maintaining a portfolio, sharing knowledge—none of it required WordPress's complexity. I was paying a significant security and maintenance cost for features I didn't use.
What is Static Site Generation?
Static site generation is a different approach entirely. Instead of generating pages on-the-fly when someone visits, a static site generator:
- Reads your content (usually written in Markdown—plain text files)
- Builds the entire site into HTML/CSS/JavaScript files
- Uploads the static files to a server
When someone visits your site, they get pure HTML. No database queries, no server-side processing, no login pages. Just fast, simple files.
I chose Hugo, a popular open-source static site generator. Hugo is fast, flexible, and designed for building content-heavy sites. My entire site—all posts, pages, and configurations—lives in git-controlled markdown files.
The Benefits I've Experienced
Security
This is the biggest win. My site has:
- No login page to attack
- No database to hack
- No plugins with vulnerabilities
- No server-side code to exploit
My entire website is served from a CDN with no dynamic components. The attack surface is essentially zero. Hackers can't gain access because there's nothing to access. This is fortress-level security with zero ongoing maintenance.
Result: Zero security alerts. Zero sleepless nights.
Performance
Static files are the fastest thing you can serve:
- HTML files load instantly (no database queries)
- CDN distribution means global fast delivery
- Lighthouse scores: 99-100 across all metrics
- Page load time: Sub-200ms globally
Compare this to WordPress where every page load hits the database. Even with caching, dynamic systems are slower.
Result: My site now outperforms nearly every WordPress site on the web.
Content Ownership
My content is now in simple, version-controlled markdown files. No vendor lock-in, no proprietary database format. If I want to switch generators, migrate platforms, or publish elsewhere—it's trivial.
Compare this to WordPress where exporting content requires plugins, API calls, and manual cleanup. Your content is hostage to the system.
Result: Complete control and portability.
Maintenance
I don't maintain a server. I don't update WordPress. I don't worry about plugin compatibility. I write content, push to git, and the site auto-builds and deploys.
Result: More time writing, zero time maintaining.
Cost
Hosting for static sites is cheap. Some host for free (Netlify, GitHub Pages). Paid hosting is often a few dollars per month. No database hosting required.
Compare this to managed WordPress hosting (£10-50/month) or self-hosted WordPress requiring a VPS (£5-20/month) plus my time.
Result: Minimal financial cost.
The Migration Process
Migrating from WordPress wasn't instant, but it was straightforward:
1. Export WordPress content WordPress can export to XML. I used a converter to turn this into markdown files.
2. Clean up and reorganise Markdown from WordPress export needed tweaking—fixing formatting, verifying links, reorganising structure. This took a few hours.
3. Set up Hugo I chose a theme and configured the site structure. Hugo's documentation is excellent.
4. Deploy I push to GitHub, which triggers Netlify to build and deploy automatically. Zero manual deployment steps.
5. Set up CDN Using a global CDN (Cloudflare) for maximum speed and reliability.
What I Lost (And Why It Doesn't Matter)
Plugins: WordPress's strength is its ecosystem. I lost comment plugins, analytics integrations, SEO tools.
Why it doesn't matter: Comments can be managed through simple forms (I use a contact system). Analytics integration is trivial—one Google Analytics script. SEO benefits from speed and simplicity, which static sites naturally provide.
Customisation: Less flexibility than WordPress plugins.
Why it doesn't matter: Hugo themes are powerful. I have everything I need. If I need custom functionality, I write it in JavaScript—which is faster than PHP server-side rendering anyway.
WYSIWYG editor: WordPress has a visual editor. I'm now writing markdown in a text editor.
Why it doesn't matter: As a developer, I prefer markdown. It's faster, version-control-friendly, and forces me to focus on content over formatting.
Who Should Use Static Site Generation?
Static site generation is perfect for:
- Blogs and content sites - If you're primarily publishing articles, static generation is ideal
- Portfolio and CV sites - Show your work, no dynamic features needed
- Documentation sites - Fast, searchable, version-controlled
- Marketing sites - Landing pages, case studies, information sites
Static generation is not ideal for:
- E-commerce sites - You need shopping carts and payment processing
- Complex user interactions - Forums, real-time features, etc.
- Frequently changing data - Stock prices, real-time dashboards (though you can use APIs for this)
- User-generated content platforms - Comments, submissions, etc. (these require databases)
For my use case—sharing knowledge and maintaining a professional online presence—static site generation is perfect.
Lessons Learned
1. Simpler is better Removing features I didn't need made my site faster, more secure, and easier to maintain.
2. Content ownership is underrated Having my content in version-controlled markdown files gives me peace of mind. No vendor can hold my content hostage.
3. Performance matters A fast site is a better site. Static generation makes performance trivial.
4. Security shouldn't require constant vigilance A system where security is the default (not something to maintain) is vastly superior.
5. Alignment matters I was using a CMS built for teams managing large publishing operations. I'm one person writing occasional posts. This mismatch was creating unnecessary overhead.
The Path Forward
My site is now:
- Fast: Sub-200ms load times globally
- Secure: Zero attack surface
- Maintainable: Write in markdown, push to git, auto-deployed
- Owned: All content in version control
- Simple: Just HTML, CSS, JavaScript—no database, no login, no plugins
For anyone maintaining a content-focused website with WordPress, I'd encourage you to seriously consider static site generation. The migration is easier than you'd think, the benefits are substantial, and you might find you never want to go back.
If you're building a new site, start with a static site generator. The default assumption that "websites need databases" isn't true. For most use cases, static generation is faster, simpler, and more secure.
I'd love to hear about your experience. Are you considering moving away from WordPress? Have you already migrated to static generation? What challenges did you face? Share your thoughts on LinkedIn—I'm curious about your journey.